I though you where against me lol. I was like, what the hell is proponent?! Sorry, it's not a common word here in the Philippines. Haha, yeah I read all of the theories they said though so I understood most of it. It's just the videos that I found boring. If only they had some animation in that that I could pay attention to.

(28-05-2011 10:51 AM)SumAtheosMagnus Wrote: If the world started from nothing (this nothingness is just an idea on which I've thought of due to retracing everything back to energy), then there would be no laws and everything would be possible. In this scenario, the absence of matter gave presence to anti-matter. The complete nothingness then created matter randomly (since it was possible because there where no laws forbidding it to happen). Thus, the collision of anti-matter and matter which created the big bang and so on.

(28-05-2011 10:51 AM)SumAtheosMagnus Wrote: is there any flaw to what I've made up? Like, does it at all violate any law?

I’m not sure if I understand your theory completely, but here are my thoughts on it:

About there being no laws and everything would be possible therefore the nothingness created the matter simply because no laws prohibit it;
This is very similar to one of the arguments for a multiverse (with an infinite possible universes, anything is possible, thus we live in a universe where the laws of physics allow for life to emerge. We live in this particular universe because it is a possibility among infinite universes and these are the laws that allowed us to be here).
So I guess there’s no physical law prohibiting this, in fact, I believe some instances of string theory implies it

As to the absence of matter giving presence to antimatter, I think you’ve misunderstood what antimatter really is. Antimatter is just particles with the opposite electric charge to its normal-matter counterpart.

First, what is matter? Matter is simply energy with mass (if you want to be technical it’s also something that occupy a particular quantum state at any given time, meaning it occupies a certain volume, but never mind that). Matter can become energy and energy can become matter. When you convert energy to matter, it has a tendency to creating both a particle and an antiparticle.
This symmetry is an observed law of physics. When you create matter from energy you will get a particle with positive electric charge and the equivalent particle with a negative charge (which together have a neutral charge, just like the energy-particles that created them).
When these two opposite particles (one of them matter and the other antimatter) collide, they will both completely convert back into energy.
Because of this symmetry, there is a big unsolved problem in physics; why is there so much matter, but not antimatter? The current theory is that at the earlier stages of the big bang, when the energy level (or temperature) was high enough, this symmetry is broken, and it was possible for matter particles to emerge without it’s antimatter equivalent (yet keeping the charge-symmetry in some other way). The law that needs to be broken is called conservation of baryon number, in case you wanted to know more about it.

So, I guess the point is that matter and antimatter is something that came after “the big bang”, or at least after its beginning (some define the big bang as the initial point while others say it’s from the initial point until the point of last scattering). It first emerged when the energy/temperature was not too high and not too low, but just right to create the matter-antimatter particle pairs.

When did the antimatter-matter pairs emerge?
How much energy is needed can be calculated with Einstein’s simple equation: E = mc^2.
To create a pair of protons and anti-protons you need the energy equivalent of two protons times the speed of light squared (E = 2*mp * c^2) and for an electron-positron pair you need the same only the equivalent of two electron masses (E = 2*me * c^2).

Such particle pair typically comes from two photons (energy particles). So when the energy level of two such photons were just right to create a proton-antiproton pair, you get the baryogenesis epoch (a proton is a type of baryon) and when it was just right for two photons to create a electron-positron pair, you get the leptogenesis epoch ( an electron is a type of lepton).

(28-05-2011 10:51 AM)SumAtheosMagnus Wrote: If the world started from nothing (this nothingness is just an idea on which I've thought of due to retracing everything back to energy), then there would be no laws and everything would be possible. In this scenario, the absence of matter gave presence to anti-matter. The complete nothingness then created matter randomly (since it was possible because there where no laws forbidding it to happen). Thus, the collision of anti-matter and matter which created the big bang and so on.

(28-05-2011 10:51 AM)SumAtheosMagnus Wrote: is there any flaw to what I've made up? Like, does it at all violate any law?

I’m not sure if I understand your theory completely, but here are my thoughts on it:

About there being no laws and everything would be possible therefore the nothingness created the matter simply because no laws prohibit it;
This is very similar to one of the arguments for a multiverse (with an infinite possible universes, anything is possible, thus we live in a universe where the laws of physics allow for life to emerge. We live in this particular universe because it is a possibility among infinite universes and these are the laws that allowed us to be here).
So I guess there’s no physical law prohibiting this, in fact, I believe some instances of string theory implies it

As to the absence of matter giving presence to antimatter, I think you’ve misunderstood what antimatter really is. Antimatter is just particles with the opposite electric charge to its normal-matter counterpart.

First, what is matter? Matter is simply energy with mass (if you want to be technical it’s also something that occupy a particular quantum state at any given time, meaning it occupies a certain volume, but never mind that). Matter can become energy and energy can become matter. When you convert energy to matter, it has a tendency to creating both a particle and an antiparticle.
This symmetry is an observed law of physics. When you create matter from energy you will get a particle with positive electric charge and the equivalent particle with a negative charge (which together have a neutral charge, just like the energy-particles that created them).
When these two opposite particles (one of them matter and the other antimatter) collide, they will both completely convert back into energy.
Because of this symmetry, there is a big unsolved problem in physics; why is there so much matter, but not antimatter? The current theory is that at the earlier stages of the big bang, when the energy level (or temperature) was high enough, this symmetry is broken, and it was possible for matter particles to emerge without it’s antimatter equivalent (yet keeping the charge-symmetry in some other way). The law that needs to be broken is called conservation of baryon number, in case you wanted to know more about it.

So, I guess the point is that matter and antimatter is something that came after “the big bang”, or at least after its beginning (some define the big bang as the initial point while others say it’s from the initial point until the point of last scattering). It first emerged when the energy/temperature was not too high and not too low, but just right to create the matter-antimatter particle pairs.

When did the antimatter-matter pairs emerge?
How much energy is needed can be calculated with Einstein’s simple equation: E = mc^2.
To create a pair of protons and anti-protons you need the energy equivalent of two protons times the speed of light squared (E = 2*mp * c^2) and for an electron-positron pair you need the same only the equivalent of two electron masses (E = 2*me * c^2).

Such particle pair typically comes from two photons (energy particles). So when the energy level of two such photons were just right to create a proton-antiproton pair, you get the baryogenesis epoch (a proton is a type of baryon) and when it was just right for two photons to create a electron-positron pair, you get the leptogenesis epoch ( an electron is a type of lepton).

Okay so from what I've understood, matter and antimatter was NOT needed to create the big bang itself but instead, it was energy in an infinite density and temperature? Correct?

(29-05-2011 09:44 AM)SumAtheosMagnus Wrote: Okay so from what I've understood, matter and antimatter was NOT needed to create the big bang itself but instead, it was energy in an infinite density and temperature? Correct?

Yes, that's right

What came before that though, is as i mentioned earlier, not yet understood.